1. United States
2. Maine
3. Letter

On May 14, 2026, Hawaii Governor Josh Green signed into law Senate Bill 2471—a groundbreaking piece of legislation that offers a viable path forward in addressing the corrosive influence of corporate money in American politics. We write today to urge you to bring similar legislation to the federal floor and finally confront the legacy of Citizens United v. FEC. For sixteen years, the 2010 Supreme Court decision has allowed corporations and opaque "dark money" groups to pour unlimited resources into our elections, drowning out the voices of ordinary citizens and eroding public trust in democratic institutions. Previous attempts to counter this ruling have stalled or failed in federal courts, unable to overcome First Amendment obstacles as currently interpreted. Hawaii has shown us another way. Rather than attempting to regulate corporate political spending directly—a route the courts have blocked—Hawaii's legislature employed a novel but constitutionally sound approach: the state simply declined to grant corporations the power to spend in its elections. The logic is straightforward and unassailable: corporations are creations of state law. They exist only because governments charter them. Therefore, government can define the scope of their powers—and can exclude political spending from that grant of authority. This distinction matters. As legal scholars have noted, Citizens United struck down a federal prohibition on corporate spending, but it did not compel states—or Congress—to affirmatively grant corporations the power to participate in elections in the first place. The bill passed Hawaii's Senate unanimously and its House with overwhelming bipartisan support (50-1), demonstrating that this is not a partisan issue but a question of democratic principle. Fourteen other states introduced similar measures this year. Hawaii was the first to succeed. It should not be the last. We urge you to consider federal legislation modeled on SB 2471—legislation that would clarify that corporations chartered under federal law, or operating across state lines, do not possess the power to spend on federal elections or ballot initiatives. Such an approach respects the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence while restoring the proper boundaries between corporate economic activity and civic participation. The American people have waited sixteen years for a practical solution to unlimited corporate political spending. Hawaii has provided the blueprint. The question is whether Congress has the will to build upon it. The integrity of our elections—and the trust of the citizens you represent—depends on your answer.